Search age:

Do we take art a little too seriously?

PERHAPS it's because my brain is still on holidays and I'm more
inclined to laze around, wander up the street, and generally while
away my days unproductively than to take art, culture and its
consequences - or anything else for that matter - too
seriously.

Art is often discussed in reverent tones , we invest in it,
create daunting palaces for it. In the scale of reverence, it sits
ever so slightly below death and religion. A quick look at my email
in-box and you could be forgiven for thinking that art galleries
are the new cathedrals, that every artist has an epic backstory,
and every show needs to be hyped-up like an Oscar nominee.

But is art itself really all that serious? I hope not - or at
least not always.

For a start, I'm not sure that all that seriousness actually
helps much. The idea that seriousness is somehow a measure of value
and that art needs to be treated seriously all the time is a weird
one. Much of the time, people value things that make them laugh,
cry, scream, think or inspired - much more than they value the
worthy and the serious.

Of course art can be very serious. Certainly the content of art,
or the issues that underlie it, or the trail of history and life
experience that led to it can be very serious indeed. But art
itself and the rituals by which we view, trade and discuss it can
be downright daft. Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that art itself
should be treated as no more or less serious than the emotions or
experiences that it evolves from, communicates and represents.

For those of us who spend a lot of time with artists, it is a
relief to realise that most of them aren't always relentlessly
serious. A lot of my favourite artists are very funny people. They
invest their work with their sense of humour. All to often it can
easily be ruined by the sense of humourless analysis and
long-winded explanation. The barrier of superficial seriousness we
cloak art in only serves to alienate a lot of artists from their
potential audiences.

Ever noticed the hush in an art gallery? Why? Do we mistake art
galleries for libraries? You need to be silent in a library so that
other people can concentrate on long, wordy passages - if the
descriptions are that long and dense in galleries the silence is
probably not going to help.

There's a place for quiet contemplation in art but it is one of
many places. I'd like to think that there's equally a place for
loud conversation, robust debate, and animated piss-taking. Any of
these could be at least as effective as monk-like concentration
when it comes to engaging with and understanding what's up on the
walls.

Much the same could be said for the performing arts.
Shakespeare's plays benefited a lot from the robust environment in
which they were originally presented. The immediate feedback from a
loud, loutish and opinionated audience is far more effective in
correcting the inevitable weak points in a work than polite silence
followed by the occasional scathing review. I'm sure there's data
somewhere that will show that the decline in theatre as a major
cultural force directly corresponds with the improving behaviour of
its audiences.

Perhaps galleries and theatres large and small could start
marketing days when the general public (and not just the select few
who are invited to get drunk and animated on opening nights) could
feel encouraged to offer up more genuine responses to the work? How
about the occasional tumultuous Tuesday or a wild Wednesday down at
the NGV?

Or perhaps mad matinees down at the arts centre? What's the harm
as long as no one breaks anything?

Far from alienating artists and their audiences, we may find
that it actually starts to connect them. Wouldn't it be great if
everyone felt comfortable and confident enough in Australia's art
and artists to laugh and take the piss.